I have gotten several copyright strikes on my videos, but after appealing them they often went away within a week or two. In my case I was using old classical music that is in public domain, but some movie company automatically flagged it as theirs since they were also in some movie they had made and everything inside their movie is assumed to be their copyright.

It can't possibly be illegal or against YouTube guidelines to record/save a video or even less explain how you do it. That is identical to recording a TV show on your VHS recorder and that has been legal "forever".

Unless someone can point out exactly why this is against their rules I would suggest you to appeal the strike.

I noticed an interesting discussing in the YouTube comments for this video, I thought it was worth mentioning here as well:

YouTube hosts videos that are CC, hence by law you are allowed to download them. If YouTube does not provide a link and does not allow you to use third party tools, they are in breach of the law and that would invalidate their terms of services on this point.

I assume you do not want to go to court in order to battle this, but could be worth mentioning in your appeal in case you decide to go that route.

wow.. that seems a bit of a ridiculous overreaction to your video by youtube.

Especially since anyone can simply type "download youtube video" into google chrome, and have google search throw up pages and pages of links designed to get you pulling down youtube content for any reason you might want.

It can't possibly be illegal or against YouTube guidelines to record/save a video or even less explain how you do it. That is identical to recording a TV show on your VHS recorder and that has been legal "forever".

Ahh, but you forget that the USA forced a change to all that with the introduction of the DMCA and has been globetrotting around, forcing parity with US copyright laws throughout the world.

While every time the issue had gone to court previously over the years (the cassette tape recording of vinyl, the Sony Betamax case, etc.) the result was the proper one, allowing recordings under certain circumstances. The movie industry was so worried about the death of theater movies if home video were ever allowed to become a "thing", yet when they "lost", it spawned the home movie rental market which overtook theater revenues and made them more money than they ever imagined. They never learned anything from experiences like that and continue to shoot themselves in the foot at every opportunity. Good riddance, I cannot wait for the implosion....

Now that media is digital, "they" have changed the rules via the DMCA to say that everything is different now and you're essentially not allowed to record anything unless it is expressly allowed by the locked-down system provided by the overlords where recordings can be removed on a whim, etc.

For example, the guidelines for teachers who wish to show clips of something in their classroom is to use a video camera to record a television showing the desired programming and then show that recorded footage, thereby officially meeting the technicality of the rules to exercise their fair use rights, showing the media to their class for educational purposes.

Quote

YouTube hosts videos that are CC, hence by law you are allowed to download them. If YouTube does not provide a link and does not allow you to use third party tools, they are in breach of the law and that would invalidate their terms of services on this point.

Just because you are theoretically allowed to download a copy of something does not mean YouTube has a legal obligation to make downloads available. Official YouTube policy is "NO DOWNLOADING, EVER!" and there is no law that forces them to add a download button. Downloading can still be a breach of their TOS and they can essentially do whatever they want to try to prevent it.

Remember, from big copyright's perspective you never own any of the media content that you think you purchase. You simply are purchasing a license to consume that media and they'll try their hardest to make you pay for that content as many times as possible.

I wonder how many people have paid for the same album on vinyl, then 8-track, then a cassette tape, then a CD, then one or more "digital" copies, often with DRM that ends up disappearing when some company goes out of business and shuts down their authentication servers, etc

RIAA/MPAA and the other studio people probably got a scraper because of recent comments, and then you get a problem. they take their vivo/music money seriously, even when its not/doesn't involve their stuff.

so it comes down to money, and the fact that people refuse to accept that there's legitimate uses for some of the videos, and some of them can well be locally cached/saved for offline viewing without any concerns from the owners because free/fair use.

Welcome to Youtube, where they can do whatever they want and you can go yourself. You don't like it? Though luck, there's no real alternative.

This is the problem with any kind of business relationship where one party is dependent on the other but not the other way around. Luckily Dave has structured his business in a way that Youtube is only a relatively minor part of it, but in many cases people can be made or destroyed by a party that often won't even comment on what they did.

Perhaps you should remove this video as you admit here publicly that you break YouTube ToS repeatedly by downloading YouTube videos.

Also I guess that what you are saying here could also be considered "encouraging Terms of Service violations" as you are saying that professional youtubers NEED to download YouTube videos, i.e. break ToS.

Not the most effective punishment: streaming is one front where youtube actually has competition.

Quote

YouTube hosts videos that are CC, hence by law you are allowed to download them. If YouTube does not provide a link and does not allow you to use third party tools, they are in breach of the law and that would invalidate their terms of services on this point.

Ah, well. The video itself may be CC, but the delivery method is under another license

"But you're not allowed to add further restrictions..." "Ah but we're not! The video and the service are separate things!"

When it comes to static video: youtube is in the same position as eBay. Heavier that Saturn, doesn't need to give a damn about small planets.

Official YouTube policy is "NO DOWNLOADING, EVER!" and there is no law that forces them to add a download button. Downloading can still be a breach of their TOS and they can essentially do whatever they want to try to prevent it.

I've seen the same as well on LinusTechTips. I think they were punished for posting a video on YT that they were in fact live on Twitch. They do that every week, and pull the video down after the stream was finished.

One day they accidentally left that video up on YT, and got a community strike for it because the video was an initiative for users to leave the YT platform. LTT was contemplating at the time streaming to YT exclusively or both YT and Twitch. YT basically shoot themselves in the foot by not allowing them to do any live streaming at all. I think they got it resolved in the end.. then again LTT is a pretty vocal & big tech channel..

Despite that, I think Twitch also has a clauses where they don't allow you to stream content to other platforms when you're monetized there.